Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Original sin

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Because when I said it was a theory just a guess, you countered with it was an [sic] hypothesis as if that meant it was more than a theory.
    Correct, I acknowledged that how the universe was born is just a guess, an hypothesis, but unlike your guess, my hypothesis is based on what we do know about how things work, i.e. that they don't appear magically from out of nothing, things are not spoken into existence and so there is no reason to accept the notion that they are.
    So what you are saying is that you think it is even less than a theory,
    Of course.

    it is just a guess based on nothing but imagination?
    No, that would be more applicable to your position.

    A theory would have at least a proposed methodology behind it.
    Which is why I called it an hypothesis.

    no. Jim. no. Are you blind or just not actually reading what I am writing? If he created a universe based on different parameters we would have a different universe and this one would not exist.
    But he didn't create another universe, he created this one, and so being eternal and omniscient he/she/it would need know its laws eternally, or in other words the laws would need exist eternally.

    And it would have different physical laws. He could have created a universe where the speed of light was 500 miles an hour if he wanted. That would change how everything works in that universe. He could have created a universe where gravity was twice as strong as in this universe. He could have created a universe without light at all, or atoms. Anything he wanted.
    And that would be a different universe whose laws would also be eternal.


    And if he had created it differently, you (or whatever equivalent of you in the other universe) would be asking the same question. It's a nonsense question. Of course to create THIS universe he had to create it the way he created it. Because if he didn't it would be a different universe and that universe would have to be created the way he created it in order to be that universe.
    Glad you agree. In order to create this universe the laws by which it was birthed and functions would need have been eternal laws.
    So what? I didn't have to exist in THIS universe. My mom might never have met my Dad and I would not exist.
    Right, so if the laws that govern this universe were not eternal laws, then this universe would not exist.
    Last edited by JimL; 09-12-2019, 05:04 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      You have zero idea about the history of this do you? Of course they used empirical observation and testing. They watched the stars and planets, and came up with complex mathematics to describe their motion, and it was tested by checking their calculated positions to their actual positions.
      Oh. What “complex mathematics” did Aristotle use to arrive at his conclusion of a geocentric universe in which the fixed, spherical Earth is at the center, surrounded by concentric celestial spheres of planets and stars”? You realize he was wrong I trust. Nearly every argument and conclusion he made about physical science was wrong and misguided.

      In fact, did you know that the Ptolemaic model was so accurate that we still use it in planetariums?
      Except that it was fundamentally and crucially wrong. From your link: “The Ptolemaic model accounted for the apparent motions of the planets in a very direct way, by assuming that each planet moved on a small sphere or circle, called an epicycle, that moved on a larger sphere or circle, called a deferent. The stars, it was assumed, moved on a celestial sphere around the outside of the planetary spheres”.

      This is not science, rather these were clever guesses based upon shrewd observation but arriving at the wrong conclusion because, unlike scientific methodology, neither Ptolemy nor Aristotle had the means to test their hypotheses.

      So, yes, it was SCIENCE not theology.
      It was neither “science”, as we understand science to be today, NOR “theology”. It was “natural philosophy"...although Aristotle’s philosophical notions about the form of the universe were adopted by the theologians of the day to justify their geocentric model of the universe.

      The difference between 'science' and 'natural philosophy' is that the former is concerned with empirical data, i.e. data that can be observed, tested, and repeated. Science bases its explanations on the results of experiments, objective evidence, and observable facts, whereas philosophy doesn’t have the mechanism for such a process.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Correct, I acknowledged that how the universe was born is just a guess, an hypothesis, but unlike your guess, my hypothesis is based on what we do know about how things work, i.e. that they don't appear magically from out of nothing, things are not spoken into existence and so there is no reason to accept the notion that they are.
        yet that is exactly what you are doing. Claiming the universe came into being by itself out of nothing. At least with "God did it" we have a cause.

        If you have nothing just "sitting there" not doing anything eternally, why would it suddenly expand into a universe? Nothing sitting there for eternity would need SOMETHING to cause it to expand into a universe. Something who could make a decision to do it would have to cause the universe to exist. Something with a will. God.



        But he didn't create another universe, he created this one, and so being eternal and omniscient he/she/it would need know its laws eternally, or in other words the laws would need exist eternally.
        You are not making sense. If he could have created a different universe with different laws then these laws are not eternal. They only came into existence when this universe did.


        And that would be a different universe whose laws would also be eternal.
        no.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          Oh. What “complex mathematics” did Aristotle use to arrive at his conclusion of a geocentric universe in which the fixed, spherical Earth is at the center, surrounded by concentric celestial spheres of planets and stars”? You realize he was wrong I trust. Nearly every argument and conclusion he made about physical science was wrong and misguided.



          Except that it was fundamentally and crucially wrong. From your link: “The Ptolemaic model accounted for the apparent motions of the planets in a very direct way, by assuming that each planet moved on a small sphere or circle, called an epicycle, that moved on a larger sphere or circle, called a deferent. The stars, it was assumed, moved on a celestial sphere around the outside of the planetary spheres”.

          This is not science, rather these were clever guesses based upon shrewd observation but arriving at the wrong conclusion because, unlike scientific methodology, neither Ptolemy nor Aristotle had the means to test their hypotheses.
          My goodness you are stupid.

          The epicycles and such were the complex math that I was referring to. They came up with a workable theory that explained the motions of the heavens, and it was very accurate and worked. Yes it was wrong. But it worked. It was science. I am sure a lot of what we think is true in science will turn out to be false too one day. That doesn't mean it isn't science. That is exactly what science does. Tests and revises theories as new information and data comes along. And Ptolemy did have the means to test their theory. They could calculate where each of the various heavenly bodies would be at any given time. And the Heliocentric model had no better way to test itself either until we could actually leave the planet and look.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            yet that is exactly what you are doing. Claiming the universe came into being by itself out of nothing. At least with "God did it" we have a cause.
            No, that's not my argument. Do you still have that reading comprehension problem, or do you just see what you want to see? There is no such thing as absolute nothing in my opinion, which I've made clear in this discussion. The energy/matter, the substance of this universe is, in my opinion, eternal and gives rise to universes like our own. In other words, unlike your notion of divine creation out of nothing, this universe didn't come from nothing.
            If you have nothing just "sitting there" not doing anything eternally, why would it suddenly expand into a universe? Nothing sitting there for eternity would need SOMETHING to cause it to expand into a universe. Something who could make a decision to do it would have to cause the universe to exist. Something with a will. God.
            If you have god just "sitting there" not doing anything eternally, why would he/she/it suddenly puff a universe into being? Besides that, you don't know what goes on outside of this universe eternally, remember? You don't know what's there, or that it is just sitting there, that's not how nature works, so there is no reason to assume that's how mother nature works.



            You are not making sense. If he could have created a different universe with different laws then these laws are not eternal. They only came into existence when this universe did.
            I am making sense. The fact that an eternal and omniscient god could put any laws into action means that they would work as they do whether he chose to use them or not. In other words, if the laws as you contend, are eternal in the omniscient mind of god, which, being omniscient, they would have to be, then they can be eternal period, and so would work irregardless of their source.

            no.
            Yes.
            Last edited by JimL; 09-13-2019, 09:37 AM.

            Comment


            • [QUOTE=JimL;669540]No, that's not my argument. Do you still have that reading comprehension problem, or do you just see what you want to see? There is no such thing as absolute nothing in my opinion, which I've made clear in this discussion. The energy/matter, the substance of this universe is, in my opinion, eternal and gives rise to universes like our own. In other words, unlike your notion of divine creation out of nothing, this universe didn't come from nothing. [quote]
              Great so you invent something eternal and powerful to replace God. How is your inanimate God any better? You have no evidence for it. And you can't explain how it suddenly 'decided' to create this universe after eternally existing forever without creating it.

              If you have god just "sitting there" not doing anything eternally, why would he/she/it suddenly puff a universe into being? Besides that, you don't know what goes on outside of this universe eternally, remember? You don't know what's there, or that it is just sitting there, that's not how nature works, so there is no reason to assume that's how mother nature works.
              Well because he decided to do it. Your eternal metaverse would have suddenly decided to create something (our universe) for no reason at all after not doing it for eternity. You should read up on the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the impossibility of an actual infinite regression. Your metaverse would have to have the property of time passing in order for any change to occur. Which means an infinite amount of time passed before it created our universe. That would be impossible.

              Third, this same conclusion is also implied by the fact that only personal, free agency can account for the origin of a first temporal effect from a changeless cause. We have concluded that the beginning of the universe was the effect of a First Cause. By the nature of the case that cause cannot have any beginning of its existence nor any prior cause. Nor can there have been any changes in this cause, either in its nature or operations, prior to the beginning of the universe. It just exists changelessly without beginning, and a finite time ago it brought the universe into existence. Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal and yet the effect which it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then why is not the effect eternal? How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect?

              One might say that the cause came to exist or changed in some way just prior to the first event. But then the cause’s beginning or changing would be the first event, and we must ask all over again for its cause. And this cannot go on forever, for we know that a beginningless series of events cannot exist. There must be an absolutely first event, before which there was no change, no previous event. We know that this first event must have been caused. The question is: How can a first event come to exist if the cause of that event exists changelessly and eternally? Why isn’t the effect co-eternal with its cause?

              The best way out of this dilemma is agent causation, whereby the agent freely brings about some event in the absence of prior determining conditions. Because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. For example, a man sitting changelessly from eternity could freely will to stand up; thus, a temporal effect arises from an eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By “choose” one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.
              https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...ical-argument/




              I am making sense. The fact that an eternal and omniscient god could put any laws into action means that they would work as they do whether he chose to use them or not. In other words, if the laws as you contend, are eternal in the omniscient mind of god, which, being omniscient, they would have to be, then they can be eternal period, and so would work irregardless of their source.


              Yes.
              No Jim. If he designs the universe to work in such a way that we can explain it with so-called "laws" that doesn't mean that the laws exist eternally or that the universe he created has to work the way this one does. Without the universe there are no laws because there is nothing in existence for the PHYSICAL laws to explain.


              Comment


              • [QUOTE=Sparko;669555][QUOTE=JimL;669540]No, that's not my argument. Do you still have that reading comprehension problem, or do you just see what you want to see? There is no such thing as absolute nothing in my opinion, which I've made clear in this discussion. The energy/matter, the substance of this universe is, in my opinion, eternal and gives rise to universes like our own. In other words, unlike your notion of divine creation out of nothing, this universe didn't come from nothing. [quote]
                Great so you invent something eternal and powerful to replace God. How is your inanimate God any better? You have no evidence for it. And you can't explain how it suddenly 'decided' to create this universe after eternally existing forever without creating it.
                Not replacing god, can't replace that which doesn't exist. The Cosmos is better because we don't have to resort to ridiculous notions like "the universe was spoken into existence from out of nothing." And btw, you can no more explain what in the dickens god was doing for an eternity before deciding to create this universe. What was he doing, sleeping, playing tiddlywinks, what?
                Well because he decided to do it. Your eternal metaverse would have suddenly decided to create something (our universe) for no reason at all after not doing it for eternity. You should read up on the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the impossibility of an actual infinite regression. Your metaverse would have to have the property of time passing in order for any change to occur. Which means an infinite amount of time passed before it created our universe. That would be impossible.

                Third, this same conclusion is also implied by the fact that only personal, free agency can account for the origin of a first temporal effect from a changeless cause. We have concluded that the beginning of the universe was the effect of a First Cause. By the nature of the case that cause cannot have any beginning of its existence nor any prior cause. Nor can there have been any changes in this cause, either in its nature or operations, prior to the beginning of the universe. It just exists changelessly without beginning, and a finite time ago it brought the universe into existence. Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal and yet the effect which it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then why is not the effect eternal? How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect?

                One might say that the cause came to exist or changed in some way just prior to the first event. But then the causeÂ’s beginning or changing would be the first event, and we must ask all over again for its cause. And this cannot go on forever, for we know that a beginningless series of events cannot exist. There must be an absolutely first event, before which there was no change, no previous event. We know that this first event must have been caused. The question is: How can a first event come to exist if the cause of that event exists changelessly and eternally? Why isnÂ’t the effect co-eternal with its cause?

                The best way out of this dilemma is agent causation, whereby the agent freely brings about some event in the absence of prior determining conditions. Because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. For example, a man sitting changelessly from eternity could freely will to stand up; thus, a temporal effect arises from an eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By “choose” one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.
                https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...ical-argument/
                William Lane Craig's philosophical musings are not science. And btw, the effect, i.e. the universe, is eternal with respect to the cause, it is only temporal with respect to itself. In other words they, the effect and the cause are one and the same thing, one and the same substance, which is why I say that the universe, our universe, did not come from nothing. Energy/matter could swirl around in the Cosmos for eternity and never create anything until all of a sudden the circumstances become just right and bang.



                No Jim. If he designs the universe to work in such a way that we can explain it with so-called "laws" that doesn't mean that the laws exist eternally or that the universe he created has to work the way this one does. Without the universe there are no laws because there is nothing in existence for the PHYSICAL laws to explain.

                Are you suggesting that god created something that he didn't eternally know would function the way it does?
                Last edited by JimL; 09-13-2019, 11:28 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  The epicycles and such were the complex math that I was referring to. They came up with a workable theory that explained the motions of the heavens, and it was very accurate and worked. Yes it was wrong. But it worked. It was science.
                  It was NOT "science" as we know it today. The “epicycles and such” and their mathematical base were grounded in the seemingly self-evident truth of a geocentric universe. But scientific methodology is not based upon such maxims but rather on verifiable/falsifiable hypotheses. The requirement of falsifiability means that conclusions cannot be drawn from simple observation of a particular phenomenon. This is the difference between the natural philosophy of Ptolemy and Aristotle and scientific methodology. The advent of the ‘scientific method’ in the 17th century marked the beginning of the end for the ‘natural philosophy’ of Aristotle and Ptolemy etc.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    No, that's not my argument. Do you still have that reading comprehension problem, or do you just see what you want to see? There is no such thing as absolute nothing in my opinion, which I've made clear in this discussion. The energy/matter, the substance of this universe is, in my opinion, eternal and gives rise to universes like our own. In other words, unlike your notion of divine creation out of nothing, this universe didn't come from nothing.
                    Where did the other universe come from? This is just making up stuff to explain the current universe. It isn't science, it is wishful thinking. There is no evidence of a prior universe.


                    Not replacing god, can't replace that which doesn't exist.
                    It is replacing God. Instead of believing in God, you believe in another eternal universe that created this one. You just replaced the concept of a personal God with an inanimate object and think that is a better explanation. It isn't.

                    The Cosmos is better because we don't have to resort to ridiculous notions like "the universe was spoken into existence from out of nothing." And btw, you can no more explain what in the dickens god was doing for an eternity before deciding to create this universe. What was he doing, sleeping, playing tiddlywinks, what?
                    There was no time until God created it.

                    William Lane Craig's philosophical musings are not science.
                    Neither is your garbage. It is imaginary science. A hypothesis as you said. With no evidence.

                    And btw, the effect, i.e. the universe, is eternal with respect to the cause, it is only temporal with respect to itself. In other words they, the effect and the cause are one and the same thing, one and the same substance, which is why I say that the universe, our universe, did not come from nothing. Energy/matter could swirl around in the Cosmos for eternity and never create anything until all of a sudden the circumstances become just right and bang.
                    You still end up with an infinite series of events before the universe is created and you can't have such a thing. That is why I linked you to Craig's paper. read it.



                    Are you suggesting that god created something that he didn't eternally know would function the way it does?
                    Are you claiming that knowing how something will function means it exists before it is made? Are you stupid?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      It was NOT "science" as we know it today. The “epicycles and such” and their mathematical base were grounded in the seemingly self-evident truth of a geocentric universe. But scientific methodology is not based upon such maxims but rather on verifiable/falsifiable hypotheses. The requirement of falsifiability means that conclusions cannot be drawn from simple observation of a particular phenomenon. This is the difference between the natural philosophy of Ptolemy and Aristotle and scientific methodology. The advent of the ‘scientific method’ in the 17th century marked the beginning of the end for the ‘natural philosophy’ of Aristotle and Ptolemy etc.
                      I can't believe how ignorant you and JimL are about science.

                      By your definition Copernicus' heliocentric model wasn't science either.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        Where did the other universe come from? This is just making up stuff to explain the current universe. It isn't science, it is wishful thinking. There is no evidence of a prior universe.
                        Obviously, had you comprehended what I said, the other universes would have come from the same place that our universe came from. And you are correct, it isn't science, but it is an extroplation of what we do know of existence in that whatever comes into existence comes from that which already exists, and there is no reason to believe that the birth of our universe is any different in that respect.

                        It is replacing God. Instead of believing in God, you believe in another eternal universe that created this one. You just replaced the concept of a personal God with an inanimate object and think that is a better explanation. It isn't.
                        It is a better explanation, because I am not adding something that there is no evidence of. We have evidence of material existence, none of immaterial existence. I can't replace that for which there is no evidence of in the first place.
                        There was no time until God created it.
                        Then a being who thinks and acts didn't exist either.
                        Neither is your garbage. It is imaginary science. A hypothesis as you said. With no evidence.
                        Well, mine is not direct evidence, it's an extrapolation of natural processes to the birth of the natural universe itself, but WLC's is totally made up, based upon nothing. That would make his hypothesis worse than garbage by your standards.
                        You still end up with an infinite series of events before the universe is created and you can't have such a thing. That is why I linked you to Craig's paper. read it.
                        I already know the argument, and disagree. Unless you want to argue that an eternal and infinite god wouldn't be capable of creating an infinite series of events as well.



                        Are you claiming that knowing how something will function means it exists before it is made? Are you stupid?
                        I am arguing that, yes, because if the knowledge, i.e if the laws of how a thing will function is eternal, then the thing itself is eternal, since a law, as you admitted, is naught but discriptive of the existing thing itself.
                        Last edited by JimL; 09-16-2019, 09:06 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Obviously, had you comprehended what I said, the other universes would have come from the same place that our universe came from. And you are correct, it isn't science, but it is an extroplation of what we do know of existence in that whatever comes into existence comes from that which already exists, and there is no reason to believe that the birth of our universe is any different in that respect.
                          in other words a made up idea to explain our universe, exactly what you claim theists are doing.




                          It is a better explanation, because I am not adding something that there is no evidence of.
                          That is exactly what you are doing. You have no evidence of a previous universe. Or of a metaverse.



                          We have evidence of material existence, none of immaterial existence. I can't replace that for which there is no evidence of in the first place.
                          Ideas are immaterial. Like your idea that there was a previous universe that pooped out this one.


                          Then a being who thinks and acts didn't exist either.
                          I am sure that gives you comfort to believe.

                          Well, mine is not direct evidence, it's an extrapolation of natural processes to the birth of the natural universe itself, but WLC's is totally made up, based upon nothing. That would make his hypothesis worse than garbage by your standards.

                          I already know the argument, and disagree. Unless you want to argue that an eternal and infinite god wouldn't be capable of creating an infinite series of events as well.
                          Our view is backed up by revelation by God himself. And Jesus coming to us. Your's is just made up out of whole cloth.




                          I am arguing that, yes, because if the knowledge, i.e if the laws of how a thing will function is eternal, then the thing itself is eternal, since a law, as you admitted, is naught but discriptive of the existing thing itself.
                          If the law describes how something functions, then if the thing doesn't exist, the law can't exist.

                          So you think if God decides to great particles which exhibit the electro-magnetic force, that the electromagnetic force exists before he created the particles? That's moronic.

                          I think I am done here. Your ignorance is not worth debating. It would be like me arguing with someone who insists that the sun is a lightbulb.

                          Comment


                          • If any human legal court NEVER accepts the death of an innocent person in place of the criminal, then the concept of original sin makes no sense at all.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Same Hakeem View Post
                              If any human legal court NEVER accepts the death of an innocent person in place of the criminal, then the concept of original sin makes no sense at all.
                              If I understand your point, I don't accept the idea of original sin literally but as a metaphor for what every person goes through in terms of innocence, temptation, and then knowingly doing what they know is the wrong thing to do. The possibility of doing wrong (moral responsibility) entails the all but certain outcome that one will consciously do wrong at some point in his or her life.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Original sin: The tendency to evil supposedly innate in all human beings, held to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall.

                                Here I'm not focusing on the why of original sin, how we got here, but the fact of original sin (or evil). That we all do evil. And it's not that we merely do evil by mistake, but that we do wrong even when we agree with ourselves that the act is wrong. We, as humans, have all experienced this: I know A is wrong, I agree that A is wrong, yet I do it anyway. The morally rational is superseded or rejected - and we choose the wrong. But why, what is driving these bad choices, if we agree and know A is wrong, what compels us to go against our best moral sense? If we say selfishness or lust then the question becomes - how/why do these so often rise to ascendancy? What makes us forgo the rational in these moral situations?
                                In general what makes us err or make "bad" choices is an excess of "desire" such as greed. hate, envy, tribalism....etc. But desire can also help us make good choices...such as sharing, love, tolerance, wholistic/unity.....

                                Our actions can take many forms....
                                to intentionally harm
                                to intentionally help but create accidental harm
                                to act accidentally and create unintentional harm

                                out of these...there are situations where human beings intentionally harm using "reason" as justification.....for example, the U.S. tortured people in order to "get information". Democracies that go to war (because democracies have a choice),
                                to incarcerate people who have committed a crime in punitive justice systems....
                                then there are other "reasons" such as....opium...a drug used for medicinal purposes gets abused and causes harm...today it is making news as the fentanayl/opioid epidemic...or the use of plastics that both helped and harmed.
                                Then there are things that "make sense" but cause unintentional harm such as the design and use of propellers which end up harming marine life and birds....

                                value definitions of moral/immoral, good/bad, rational/emotional are often situation-dependent. To look at human actions...or to interpret human intentions...as a binary is unrealistic and reductionist....?.....

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X